Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Corpuscles]

BTW, one can certainly argue, and many do, about the instantaneity of gravitation across distance. This is the same argument for me about light... in the CPFT there is no fundamental difference between the two, both are manifestations of the same universal centropic force, and both are instantaneous effects which are independent of distance.

Webo

I admit my entry in thread so far was sort of "fishing" in hope you could argue a reasoned case for instantaneous "light". I have also in the past contemplated such, most likely in connection with the subject of "action at a distance".

Is there any available more detailed ,readable version of this "CPFT" ? Without intentional patronising, you seem far to knowledgeable not to be listened to (taken seriously) here at TB forum.

We only are able to identify or measure time as a result of movement. v=dt. (If hypothetically ,everything in the universe stopped still we might have consciousness of "continuing existance" but could not measure it.)

Isn't light part of what , for want of better term , electro magnetic spectrum. Involving oscillations (frequency) producing a wavelength (regardless of whether longitudinal or transverse).

How does one go about making; light, or radio waves , microwaves etc, unless one accepts frquency and wavelength and therefore a "speed" variable only to the extent of medium of transmission? How do you contemplate it?

This CPFT seems to revert to early 19th century or prior contemplation of a massively dense aetheric transmission medium "more tenuous than steel but behaving like a liquid'.

.....and that detection of delay is only the result of the effects of inpurity in that medium matter ,air , earth, plasma and the effect of inverse square of distance ( another way of putting your everything in motion causes an angle of incidence at point of detection.

The GPS... are you saying it really shouldn't work because the signals from all three triangulated satelites all hit arrive instantaneously

[sjw40364]

Webo,
Now, if you want to say that different wavelengths of light might propagate at different speeds one could possibly equate gravity as a frequency of the EM force, but that would mean your flashlight emits gravity, unless that frequency (visible and frequencies we can detect) are not involved in the gravitational force. Again, it all boils down to how much (faith) one has in the ability of current equipment to actually detect all frequencies or merely a portion thereof. Since the moon has a gravitational force, but only reflects light, one can presume all the frequencies we can currently detect may be but a small portion of the totality. Just as the atom is basically our current technological limit on size.

But I also do believe if you turned your radio on and I then transmitted you a signal, you would not receive it at the exact same time as I sent it. Again, this does not mean per se that all frequencies have the same amount of aberration. Again, how much faith does everyone have that if frequency speed varied slightly, that current technology would be able to detect that difference? I do notice all tests of c vary slightly from test to test, so they are not that precise, or perhaps are measuring a slightly different frequency.

I personally have no problems with FTL travel, but I do and probably always will about instantaneous. I believe Newton, GR, and SR are all wrong when it comes to propagation speeds. Gravity is not instantaneous nor is it c.

[Goldminer]

BTW, one can certainly argue, and many do, about the instantaneity of gravitation across distance. This is the same argument for me about light... in the CPFT there is no fundamental difference between the two, both are manifestations of the same universal centropic force, and both are instantaneous effects which are independent of distance.

Webo

I admit my entry in thread so far was sort of "fishing" in hope you could argue a reasoned case for instantaneous "light". I have also in the past contemplated such, most likely in connection with the subject of "action at a distance".

Is there any available more detailed ,readable version of this "CPFT" ? Without intentional patronising, you seem far to knowledgeable not to be listened to (taken seriously) here at TB forum.

We only are able to identify or measure time as a result of movement. v=dt. (If hypothetically ,everything in the universe stopped still we might have consciousness of "continuing existence" but could not measure it.)

Isn't light part of what , for want of better term , electromagnetic spectrum. Involving oscillations (frequency) producing a wavelength (regardless of whether longitudinal or transverse).

How does one go about making; light, or radio waves , microwaves etc, unless one accepts frequency and wavelength and therefore a "speed" variable only to the extent of medium of transmission? How do you contemplate it?

This CPFT seems to revert to early 19th century or prior contemplation of a massively dense aetheric transmission medium "more tenuous than steel but behaving like a liquid'.

.....and that detection of delay is only the result of the effects of impurity in that medium matter ,air , earth, plasma and the effect of inverse square of distance ( another way of putting your everything in motion causes an angle of incidence at point of detection.

The GPS... are you saying it really shouldn't work because the signals from all three triangulated satellites all hit arrive instantaneously

Sorry webo, seems to me you have some 'splainin' to do, if you want me to appreciate your ideas on the propagation of light.

Now, anyone: tell me if I have this right: Firstly, there is a difference between the meaning of "instantaneous," and "simultaneous."

Granted, the following explanation is simplified, and the user's receiver is able to do the calculations very quickly:

The entire constellation of GPS satellites each broadcast a time stamped signal. The point in time (the "time stamp") that each one sends is identical at the instant in time it is broadcast by all satellites. This appears to be instantaneous communication between satellites. In actuality, it is driven ahead of time ("Steered" in GPS parlance). Each or any "user" receiver will receive these time stamped signals from several satellites simultaneously (i.e. at the same instant in time). The receiver examines the signal time stamp from each satellite and by comparison finds each signal was sent at a different and unique instant in the past, for each satellite. The difference in the "past time stamp" for each satellite and the "present" time stamp at which the receiver simultaneously received all the signals determines a unique radius sphere for each satellite, based upon one foot per nanosecond delay between transmission and reception. All these spheres intersect at the location of the user's receiver at the time of reception, which is the purpose the system produces.

No latency, no workie. So sorry Webo, seems to me you have some 'splainin' to do

Einstein's theory disallows Universal time, and promotes relativity of simultaneity (i.e. the inability to determine if events are actually simultaneous when the sources and receivers are in motion.) The GPS system works very well in spite of his theory.

[sjw40364]

The GPS works because the clocks are not adjusted according to SR or GR, but LR. They are adjusted to an imaginary clock at rest in the ECIF.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp

Because as I have tried to tell you, all clocks tick differently based upon their energy input.

[webolife]

I'll reply to the above few posts, but first get this off my "notebook":
(Posted also at Silly Einstein, but it more appropriately belongs here)

Webolife said: One-way vs two-way light...

I agree with the concept that there is only "one-way" light -- it is a vector directed toward the center, the centroid of the lighting system [sun, star, or lamp filament]. It is minimally necessary for a finite pulse to be generated,as there is no phenomenality to light without duration. Light detected from a distance star has only one referent, the point of detection, photosensory cell etc. This is clearly "one-way light" which when you see it it is "here", you never get to see it "along the way", let alone "when it left". Without a theory to redirect your thinking, there is no reason to believe the light took any time to "get here"; except that with "ordinary matter", it is ludicrous to believe an object can be shot from one location and immediately reach its destination. Force, ie. Impulse, works differently however: In a Newton's cradle, the impact of steel ball A against the left surface of ball B is immediately felt by the surface of ball C to the right of ball B, as well as by balls D and E. Unavoidable inelasticity in this non-ideal situation causes net loss/entropy of energy across the distance from the the left of A to the right of E, but no measurable delay of time. The necessary presupposition in this case is that Ball A left is connnected to Ball E right.

"Two-way" light must refer to the case when a pulse is generated from a local source centroid toward a reflector, then the reflected ray is detected, by a nearby detector. Actually this is still "one-way light" with a reflection mid-path. Synchronicity between source, reflector and detector must be presumed, inferred, ignored, or otherwise surmised, but is not confirmable, thus it matters where clocks are placed and upon what assumptions they are synchronized -- if a pulse has finite length and is presumed to be identical at any part of the pulse, synchronizing using a c-based formula will yield a result that affirms a c-based delay; what is known without any uncertainty is that light has been detected by the sensor. "Latency" to be accounted for may consist of delays caused [by inertia?] at [the atomic level of] the reflecting surface, perhaps further delays caused by interactions with a medium [an aetheric interaction at an atomic scale, if there is one], and a delay caused [by inertia in] the sensor surface [also at the atomic level]. In addition the widening beam of light reflected to the sensor creates a gradient of pressure, which will affect the resulting reception of that light by an amount determined by the part[s] of the gradient which are being measured and the sensitivity calibrations of the device. Some of redshift may be attributable to this as an aberration. Intensity and angle/gradient of the light are both affected by if not dependent or proportional to the distance of the reflector, and would cause delays independent of inherent c-rate latency.

[webolife]

Corpuscles,
Am I "reverting" to a 19th C aether concept? No, I actually don't need an "aether", but if I did, it might sound like the extremely dense solid concept to some, as I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum in months or years past....
What I do "need" is the presupposition of a finite universe. If this is not a premise you can support, then you may not be able to understand [or validate] my theory. Finitude infers connectivity to all parts of the universe, the evidence of which would be that we can see those parts, inferring also that the universe is not significantly larger than [indeed, with the elimination of Hubble redshift paradigm may be significantly smaller than] what is commonly supposed. In terms of past paradigms, I am allied to Pascal and DesCartes, much of but not entirely Newton, and Kepler to significant degrees. Also to Galileo in that I represent a curved motion for inertia as opposed to Newton's inertia based on rectilinear motion. The curved motion is an acknowledgment that Newton's ideal exists nowhere in the universe. Due to the connectivity of all things [called it universal gravitation for lack of a better term], there is no "balanced force" in the universe... all are centropic, in dynamic near-equilibrium with angular momentum, but at every interaction yielding a net centropic [PE reducing] energy vector. Ie. every thing is falling down. With sufficient kinetic energy stuff is in orbit around other stuff. Otherwise "pinched" rather than "expanding" is the modus operandi of matter in the universe. That net centropic "pinch" is observable as light, but also experiencable as gravitation, the two forces being manifestations of the same universal centropic pressure field.

The TB thread originally devoted to this was:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=5265

My Centropic Pressure Field theory [CPFT] theory is available [maybe?] as a Google Document co-organized by Lloyd, from this link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h-k ... SrzFI/edit

Lloyd started that for me; I'm not sure how Google Docs work... when I go there I can edit anything on it, so I'm afraid that anyone else going there can also mutilate, spindle, fold, or otherwise alter the document as well...
I also do not feel particularly proprietary of it, but I will beg the honor of the reader to leave the document intact as is. I have another copy on file but don't know how to put it in a format that is more secure [such as my own website].

[webolife]

SJW,
To me "Frequency" is a function of the source/centroid's atomic/electronic configuration and not an inherent trait of light. It characterizes the light signal or pulse[s], which when "collected" by a resonant device [eg. a radio antenna, or the retina for RGB colors], can be translated into electrochemical impulses, sound, oscillations on a scope, or whatever. To understand how a color can be induced from a pulse frequency, without reference to wavefronts, try out a Benham disk. You can copy one onto some paper cut it out and stick it on a spindle. Spin it first one way , then the other. I'll be curious to hear your response to this simple activity.

The standard relation between wavelength, frequency and c does not fit with my theory.

I do argue that gravitation is virtually instantaneous, [not "infinite velocity", an oxymoron]. And light as a pressure field manifestation of the same universal unified field, is also virtually instantaneous across [any] distance.

[webolife]

Goldminer,
"Propagation" is just another nomer for "emission" -- I prefer "projection" and "vector" as geometric terms instead. Any term that presumes motion of light stuff across distance cannot be used to describe AAAD. Do you agree with this?

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
"Propagation" is just another nomer for "emission" -- I prefer "projection" and "vector" as geometric terms instead. Any term that presumes motion of light stuff across distance cannot be used to describe AAAD. Do you agree with this?

I don't remember exactly what your AAAD stands for, but in your last few posts you implied that your "projections" and "vectors" are "instantly" projected from the viewer to the source, (I suppose Instantly would not leave any discussion as to which way said "projection" and "vector" actually "went.")

Anyway, so yeah, nothing I say can be used to describe anything you say because we are not on the same page, in the same book, in the same library, on the same Earth, in the same Universe.

Nevertheless, Webocentric light does have a nice ring to it.

[Lloyd]

Web said: My Centropic Pressure Field theory [CPFT] theory is available [maybe?] as a Google Document co-organized by Lloyd, from this link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h-k ... SrzFI/edit
Lloyd started that for me; I'm not sure how Google Docs work... when I go there I can edit anything on it, so I'm afraid that anyone else going there can also

Anyone can view it, but only you and I can edit it.

[4realScience]

As an aside, Tom Van Flandern has conclusively shown imho that the speed of the gravitational force (at a distance) is fairly infinite. Isn't it funny that this also adds weight to the theory that we all live in a computer simulation as in the movie 'The Matrix'?

If you don't hear from me again it might be that the _big programmers_ deleted my character.

[webolife]

Goldminer,
It is the universes of our minds that distinguish us... we both live with our feet planted firmly in this one, but viewing it perhaps from different planets... Vectors don't "went" anywhere. They exist as a descriptive attribute of the interaction of two bodies. A man pushing against a wall isn't moving, nor is the wall, but the interaction of his body with the wall is causing changes at the inteface, eg. producing heat... yet some would say that his hands and the bricks never actually contact each other at the atomic level.

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
It is the universes of our minds that distinguish us... we both live with our feet planted firmly in this one, but viewing it perhaps from different planets... Vectors don't "went" anywhere. They exist as a descriptive attribute of the interaction of two bodies. A man pushing against a wall isn't moving, nor is the wall, but the interaction of his body with the wall is causing changes at the inteface, eg. producing heat... yet some would say that his hands and the bricks never actually contact each other at the atomic level.

Yes, and your above posted comment has exactly what to do with>>> Re: Action at a Distance = Fiction . . . ?

I just quoted myself!

Webo, you're causing me to do silly stuff!

Webolife said: One-way vs two-way light . . . I agree with the concept that there is only "one-way" light -- it is a vector directed toward the center . . .

You agree with whom, concerning one-way light? The question is about whether the speed of light between a source and observer under condition that the distance is changing between them can be accurately and meaningfully measured. According to you and the mouse in your pocket the question is irrelevant.

(My comment about the highlighted question is that : No, dividing the elapsed time two-way trip of a reflected pulse of light by two does not equal the one-way time, nor does it reveal the exact distance to the mirror for either leg of the trip. This is not due to any Einstein mythology, but to the fact that each leg is traversed over a different distance, since the distance is continuously changing between source and mirror.)

The standard relation between wavelength, frequency and c does not fit with my theory.

Webo, you have a theory. All well and good. SJW has a theory. All well and good there too.

IMHO. I think my one trick pony discussion is not about my pet theory, for the most part but about the glaring illogic of Einstein's theory. I would very much like to engage both of you and any and everybody else in that discussion, however that is not quite on the topic of this thread.

[Corpuscles]

Webo

Just a note to thank you for taking the trouble to reply to me , particularly with the paper that Lloyd put together for you. It helped me get some "vibe" or understanding of your general (albeit rather abstract) concept. Some very interesting thoughts in there! Congrats on effort to construct something so... fantastic

I read somewhere (perhaps on TB forum) a rather profound statement something like.....That the moment one declares a 'finite' universe then that "universe" must belong in something greater, therefore it cannot represent finite entirity. ....What is the "space" immediately outside your finite universe?

Thanks again, and for now I will bow out of this discussion , enriched by contemplation of alternative thought , but chosing to accept we simply disagree. I just cannot get my head around how you can be comfortable with .. not a particle, not a wave, not an aetheric phenomena, but just IS a non-descript pressure "beam" or "ray"

Cheers

[webolife]

Space, as a physical parameter, cannot exist "outside" of the universe, only between its objects.
Add to this logical premise that there is a finite amount of objects in the universe, and you have the makings of a connected body of matter, the fundamental thesis of my theory. You may agree or not with the premises but you cannot disprove them. Now, I agree with your statement that the definition of "finite" implies a larger field, but I do not attribute the quality of "space" to that field for the reason of my first statement above. Thus the universe's field must exist in a realm not limited by the physical constructs of this universe, it's laws and limiltations. Like a Venn diagram in which the "universal" set contains a smaller, defined set, our universe. The realm beyond our universe is of course also found within it, but not defined by it, by the same set logic. It's not as fantastical as you might think, just not your standard materialist theory. Does it require a certain amount of faith? Of course. So does every theory propounded in this forum. Think of this: Matter creates itself - No physical evidence to suggest this. Matter has always existed from eternity past - Not a provable supposition. The vacuum energy spontaneously creates matter - Pure fiction when it comes to solid support. Matter and energy were intelligently created -- is this belief really more far fetched than the others? These are all human questions, worthy of consideration on that board. All require a faith base, which once affirmed, leads logically to its peculiar conclusion, given all the same evidences.

Goldminer, are you asking me what the hands and wall not physically contacting each other has to do with AAAD?
Do you, as does MichaelV, believe that all interactions are actual solid collisions of immeasurable invisible imagined particles? Does this belief pass some acid test of scientific theorizing that precludes the possibility that objects can interact without touching?